Public accountability

Accountability requires at least two people. Networks and constructs of accountability could not exist without each other, although they are not obviously the same. If accountees were not there, the accountor could account, so a social network must exist. There has to be someone to account to, the accountee, and someone to account, the accountor. Bovens [i] seems concerned with the idea of accountability as a social network. Its functions are for democratic control, to enhance integrity of public governance, provide public catharsis, and improve performance and maintain or enhance legitimacy of public governance. Accountability could be a scheme for blaming; if there is liability, who is the accountor? Broadness of accountability in the public sector makes accountors almost anonymous. There are many accountors in an institutional context: corporate, hierarchical, collective, individual (c.f. Sullivan). This could be corporate accountability or hierarchical accountability and links with Day & Klein’s discussion of hierarchical accountability.

Secondly, there is a problem of many eyes: who is the accountee? Such stakeholders are more diverse than in the private sector. Who is the accountor accountable to, and these could also be institutional accountees, not just individuals. Such accountees may be organisational, political, legal, or professional. Role of the media has increased importance to political accountability, and accountability is symbolic of the integrity of governance. In the move from vertical to horizontal accountability, which eyes are more powerful? There can be a problem of too much accountability, where the best outcomes are not obtained because of the need to prove fairness.

[i] Bovens, M. (2005). Public Accountability. The Oxford Handbook of Public Management Draft, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (eds.),. Oxford, Oxford University Press.